Should we abolish the papacy?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4
 

TheKasp:

Have you actually read the link?

"The conclusions do not mean that every tenth condom is defective, but rather that something has gone wrong in about 10 percent of their use. In many cases, specialists said, human error is the source of the failure, resulting in condoms slipping off, breaking, or not being put on early enough."

It's not the bats fault the players aren't hitting home runs every time... the people are just using it wrong. If we teach them to use it better, it'll work every time!

It hardly matters why the condom is failing, human error is not a factor you can eliminate. Frankly, I'm a little tired of "people will have sex anyway without condoms, it's human nature" from people who think that if we throw the information at them enough times the same people with the same human nature will stop making mistakes in their condom usage.

At any rate, I already won this arguement. If you can read the whole discussion (or atleast the last few posts) I was in and still respond to me, then we'll talk.

If you want my two cents, here they are (having read the post but not the comments because meh I'll do that in a bit and then comment again)
I was raised a Catholic and Pope John Paul 2 was pope then, the only time we mentioned him in my family was to say what a great man he was as regards championing young people, for example. Then came Pope Benedict, to whom reference used to be made as regards how hard it was for him that there is so much anti-papal/anti-catholic prejudice in the media, for example. Then I went to college and started thinking for myself, met Atheists and Buddhists and Jews and decided I might give Catholicism a rest for now at any rate. So now I have a religious identity but am not sure what it is.
How does the Pope relate to my religious identity? He does not. If he is the chosen voice of God why is he not chosen by God instead of people? And if he is chosen by people, why only by a select group of males? Why does God never chose a woman to be his/her voice on earth? Why does God never use his human mouthpiece to change the flaws in the Catholic Church? And that's without even mentioning condomgate...

tstorm823:
At any rate, I already won this arguement.

Just out of curiosity, is this going to be your tactic on every topic from now on? Just declaring victory? I ask because I've noticed you do this a few times in the last couple of days at least.

tstorm823:

It's not the bats fault the players aren't hitting home runs every time... the people are just using it wrong. If we teach them to use it better, it'll work every time!

It hardly matters why the condom is failing, human error is not a factor you can eliminate. Frankly, I'm a little tired of "people will have sex anyway without condoms, it's human nature" from people who think that if we throw the information at them enough times the same people with the same human nature will stop making mistakes in their condom usage.

At any rate, I already won this arguement. If you can read the whole discussion (or atleast the last few posts) I was in and still respond to me, then we'll talk.

Oh, you mean the discussion where you assume that avaibility of condoms increases the coutus tenfold? I would actually love to see sources supporting that notion.

Sorry, but you did not win anything. From the very beginning you started off using sources that don't support your argument (10% failure rate [irregarding the source of the failure] > failure rate of abstinence).

Skeleon:

Just out of curiosity, is this going to be your tactic on every topic from now on? Just declaring victory? I ask because I've noticed you do this a few times in the last couple of days at least.

Nah, I've always done this... especially with blablahb. Haha.

TheKasp:

Oh, you mean the discussion where you assume that avaibility of condoms increases the coutus tenfold? I would actually love to see sources supporting that notion.

Sorry, but you did not win anything. From the very beginning you started off using sources that don't support your argument (10% failure rate [irregarding the source of the failure] > failure rate of abstinence).

So you haven't read the whole thing? Good to know. I've said atleast twice that I agree there is a place for condoms in fighting AIDs. The Vatican has said that themselves even (though to be clear, I'm not just agreeing, I would have said the same before the Pope clarified for people). All I'm trying to get across is that the Vatican's comments about condoms with regards to AIDs follow a not terribly rediculous logical jump (with admittedly a couple people saying stupid things along the way, but I think I can forgive a random religious old guy for not being able to give a perfect microscopic description of how condoms work), just like the other side certainly makes some logical jumps. The only fair attitude is "yo guys, we think you're making a mistake with part of your fight against AIDs" and instead I'm hearing "The Vatican is deliberately spreading AIDs! Let's burn the witch!" I mean, I'm sure somebody gave them the reasonable attitude, and hey! they made cooperative statements.

Don't tell me I'm wrong when I'm the one being reasonable and defending people who were trying to do good. I. Win. Again. Because there is nothing to counter that.

tstorm823:
Don't tell me I'm wrong when I'm the one being reasonable and defending people who were trying to do good. I. Win. Again. Because there is nothing to counter that.

tstorm823:
You know what else? I'll defend them for shuffling around pedophiles too.

i'm starting to see a disconnect here...

it's not simply black and white. there are certain misconceptions on the condom issue but i am still confused on your stance regarding the pedophiles. i addressed it earlier and haven't gotten a response from you. you said you're defending the people who protect them, and then immediately after saying there is no condoning the actions of pedophiles. yet you condoned the actions of those who condoned it in the first place.

i don't think you can just say "i win, PERIOD" when there are very apparent holes in your logic

EDIT: meant to put this in the above post

IamMittens:
If he is the chosen voice of God why is he not chosen by God instead of people? And if he is chosen by people, why only by a select group of males? Why does God never chose a woman to be his/her voice on earth? Why does God never use his human mouthpiece to change the flaws in the Catholic Church? And that's without even mentioning condomgate...

i agree. i'm not really religious but i don't understand how a single human being can speak for an omnipotent one. men are fragile, corruptible, and have different and varying opinions that come into play when they receive a position of power. i don't think any one person can ever claim to know the will of any god, especially because it all boils down to interpretation.

also, WELCOME TO THE ESCAPIST :)

funkyjiveturkey:
it's not simply black and white. there are certain misconceptions on the condom issue but i am still confused on your stance regarding the pedophiles. i addressed it earlier and haven't gotten a response from you. you said you're defending the people who protect them, and then immediately after saying there is no condoning the actions of pedophiles. yet you condoned the actions of those who condoned it in the first place.

i don't think you can just say "i win, PERIOD" when there are very apparent holes in your logic

EDIT: meant to put this in the above post

Do you really think that the Church moved or protected pedophiles because the Church authorities condoned their actions? Sheltering someone you know from the law is not the same as condoning their actions. They didn't protect these priests because they're ok with raped children, they did it because they didn't want to see someone they knew rot in prison. I'm defending that the people who protected pedophiles were not malicious in their actions, but neither myself nor those who protected them are defending the actions of pedophiles.

tstorm823:

funkyjiveturkey:
it's not simply black and white. there are certain misconceptions on the condom issue but i am still confused on your stance regarding the pedophiles. i addressed it earlier and haven't gotten a response from you. you said you're defending the people who protect them, and then immediately after saying there is no condoning the actions of pedophiles. yet you condoned the actions of those who condoned it in the first place.

i don't think you can just say "i win, PERIOD" when there are very apparent holes in your logic

EDIT: meant to put this in the above post

Do you really think that the Church moved or protected pedophiles because the Church authorities condoned their actions? Sheltering someone you know from the law is not the same as condoning their actions. They didn't protect these priests because they're ok with raped children, they did it because they didn't want to see someone they knew rot in prison. I'm defending that the people who protected pedophiles were not malicious in their actions, but neither myself nor those who protected them are defending the actions of pedophiles.

does the term "Crimen Sollicitationis" mean anything to you?

it was a document published by the Vatican press on March 16 1962 as an order to all archbishops, bishops, and cardinals on how to exactly deal with an accusation of childhood sexual abuse. the document was made public in 2003 during the trial of an american priest, and it basically details an organized vatican coverup of these events. basically there's a passage in the document stating that anyone involved in a sexual abuse investigation, both the accuser and the accused are to remain under a vow of silence under penalty of excommunication.

they were doing their jobs to cover it up it's not just that they wanted to protect someone they know. any decent, god fearing concerned individual would contact the authorities to get that person help and to not harm another person. whether it was their job or their personal feelings, not reporting an instance of sexual abuse and allowing it to continue is condoning it.

funkyjiveturkey:

does the term "Crimen Sollicitationis" mean anything to you?

it was a document published by the Vatican press on March 16 1962 as an order to all archbishops, bishops, and cardinals on how to exactly deal with an accusation of childhood sexual abuse. the document was made public in 2003 during the trial of an american priest, and it basically details an organized vatican coverup of these events. basically there's a passage in the document stating that anyone involved in a sexual abuse investigation, both the accuser and the accused are to remain under a vow of silence under penalty of excommunication.

they were doing their jobs to cover it up it's not just that they wanted to protect someone they know. any decent, god fearing concerned individual would contact the authorities to get that person help and to not harm another person. whether it was their job or their personal feelings, not reporting an instance of sexual abuse and allowing it to continue is condoning it.

I could go on how incorrect your version of that document is, but I'd rather address the last sentence- does that really constitute condoning it? I'm a pretty clean guy as far as substances go- I don't drink, don't do drugs, find it all repulsive. I've seen many people do horrible things to themselves or others using such substances. Many of those instances, the actions were illegal, and had I reported them to the police, they could have been arrested. I'm not reporting people's drug abuse so I suppose I'm allowing it to continue, but that does not mean I'm condoning it. Not punishing an action and approving of it are not the same thing.

tstorm823:

funkyjiveturkey:

does the term "Crimen Sollicitationis" mean anything to you?

it was a document published by the Vatican press on March 16 1962 as an order to all archbishops, bishops, and cardinals on how to exactly deal with an accusation of childhood sexual abuse. the document was made public in 2003 during the trial of an american priest, and it basically details an organized vatican coverup of these events. basically there's a passage in the document stating that anyone involved in a sexual abuse investigation, both the accuser and the accused are to remain under a vow of silence under penalty of excommunication.

they were doing their jobs to cover it up it's not just that they wanted to protect someone they know. any decent, god fearing concerned individual would contact the authorities to get that person help and to not harm another person. whether it was their job or their personal feelings, not reporting an instance of sexual abuse and allowing it to continue is condoning it.

I could go on how incorrect your version of that document is, but I'd rather address the last sentence- does that really constitute condoning it? I'm a pretty clean guy as far as substances go- I don't drink, don't do drugs, find it all repulsive. I've seen many people do horrible things to themselves or others using such substances. Many of those instances, the actions were illegal, and had I reported them to the police, they could have been arrested. I'm not reporting people's drug abuse so I suppose I'm allowing it to continue, but that does not mean I'm condoning it. Not punishing an action and approving of it are not the same thing.

Using drugs and molesting kids are very different things for reasons i shouldn't even need to point out

Lets use another analogy, you see a priest of a church that preaches that homosexuals will burn in hell raping an altar boy. Do you keep quiet or not?

tstorm823:

Do you really think that the Church moved or protected pedophiles because the Church authorities condoned their actions? Sheltering someone you know from the law is not the same as condoning their actions. They didn't protect these priests because they're ok with raped children, they did it because they didn't want to see someone they knew rot in prison.

You seem to not understand that its not whether or not they defended these priests out of maliciousness or to protect their friends. The problem is that they protected child molesters in the first place. Such an act(child molesting) is generally considered to be morally bankrupt, so why is it that a organisation that claims to have a moral ground on social issues is allowed to even have an excuse for this? How can their opinion on social/cultural matters be even considered legitimate after this?

Shall we add the Magdalene Laundries to this as well?

I'm defending that the people who protected pedophiles were not malicious in their actions, but neither myself nor those who protected them are defending the actions of pedophiles.

This statement just baffles me, you're saying your/they're defending the perpetrator of a crime, yet you're not defending the crime itself? Please elaborate on how this works.

tstorm823:

funkyjiveturkey:

does the term "Crimen Sollicitationis" mean anything to you?

it was a document published by the Vatican press on March 16 1962 as an order to all archbishops, bishops, and cardinals on how to exactly deal with an accusation of childhood sexual abuse. the document was made public in 2003 during the trial of an american priest, and it basically details an organized vatican coverup of these events. basically there's a passage in the document stating that anyone involved in a sexual abuse investigation, both the accuser and the accused are to remain under a vow of silence under penalty of excommunication.

they were doing their jobs to cover it up it's not just that they wanted to protect someone they know. any decent, god fearing concerned individual would contact the authorities to get that person help and to not harm another person. whether it was their job or their personal feelings, not reporting an instance of sexual abuse and allowing it to continue is condoning it.

I could go on how incorrect your version of that document is, but I'd rather address the last sentence- does that really constitute condoning it? I'm a pretty clean guy as far as substances go- I don't drink, don't do drugs, find it all repulsive. I've seen many people do horrible things to themselves or others using such substances. Many of those instances, the actions were illegal, and had I reported them to the police, they could have been arrested. I'm not reporting people's drug abuse so I suppose I'm allowing it to continue, but that does not mean I'm condoning it. Not punishing an action and approving of it are not the same thing.

Section 11 of the document

Quoniam vero quod in hisce causis tractandis maiorem in modum curari et observari debet illud est ut eaedem secretissime peragantur et, postquam fuerint definitae et executioni iam traditae, perpetuo silentio premantur (Instr. Sancti Officii, 20 febr. 1867, n. 14); omnes et singuli ad tribunal quomodocumque pertinentes vel propter eorum officium ad rerum notitiam admissi arctissimum secretum, quod secretum Sancti Officii communiter audit, in omnibus et cum omnibus, sub poena excommunicationis latae sententiae, ipso facto et absque alia declaratione incurrendae atque uni personae Summi Pontificis, ad exclusionem etiam Sacrae Poenitentiariae, reservatae, inviolabiliter servare tenentur.

TRANSLATION

As, assuredly, what must be mainly taken care of and complied with in handling these trials is that they be managed with maximum confidentiality and after the verdict is declared and put into effect never be mentioned again (20 February 1867 Instruction of the Holy Office, 14), each and every person, who in any way belongs to the tribunal or is given knowledge of the matter because of their office, is obliged to keep inviolate the strictest secrecy (what is commonly called "the secrecy of the Holy Office") in all things and with all persons, under pain of automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication, incurred ipso facto without need of any declaration other than the present one, and reserved to the Supreme Pontiff in person alone, excluding even the Apostolic Penitentiary.

Section 13 of the document

Unless violation of secrecy occurred after an explicit procedural warning given in the course of their examination (Section 13; and cf. Section 23 concerning the person denouncing solicitation: "... before the person is dismissed, there should be presented to the person, as above, an oath of observing the secret, threatening the person, if there is a need, with an excommunication reserved to the Ordinary or to the Holy See"), no ecclesiastical penalties were to be imposed on the accuser(s) and witnesses.

The oath of office to be taken by the members of the tribunal was given as Formula A:

... Spondeo, voveo ac iuro, inviolabile secretum me servaturum in omnibus et singulis quae mihi in praefato munere exercendo occurrerint, exceptis dumtaxat iis quae in fine et expeditiones [recte: expeditione] huius negotii legitime publicari contingat ... neque unquam directe vel indirecte, nutu, verbo, scriptis, aut alio quovis modo et sub quocumque colorato praetextu, etiam maioris boni aut urgentissimae et gravissimae causae, contra hanc secreti fidem quidquam commissurum, nisi peculiaris facultas aut dispensatio expresse mihi a Summo Pontifice tributa fuerit.

TRANSLATION

"I do promise, vow and swear that I will maintain inviolate secrecy about each and every thing brought to my knowledge in the performance of my aforesaid function, excepting only what may happen to be lawfully published when this process is concluded and put into effect ... and that I will never directly or indirectly, by gesture, word, writing or in any other way, and under any pretext, even that of a greater good or of a highly urgent and serious reason, do anything against this fidelity to secrecy, unless special permission or dispensation is expressly granted to me by the Supreme Pontiff."

NOW, onto your point about not doing anything is apparently not condoning it. you used drug abuse as an example. drug abuse effects one person. if you witness someone putting drugs into their own body, unless said drugs cause them to freak out they aren't hurting anyone. it also a very bad example because calling the cops on someone who is ADDICTED to drugs doesn't solve anything compared to a harm reduction model of law, but i digress.

the priests and accused in these cases are actively harming others, causing severe mental and social trauma that follows these victims the rest of the lives. by not reporting these instances and shuffling the priests around to keep committing these crimes they are condoning the sexual abuse of children by allowing these perpetrators to actively harm children and transfer them to areas where they can do it again and again with no reprimand. drugs abuse and sexual abuse of children are two very different things, especially on a moral level when it comes to not reporting them.

child abuse is NEVER acceptable to keep quiet. regardless of it's your best friend, coworker, or one of your own parents. if anyone has half way decent moral values, they would lock up that person for both the GOOD of the guilty party and the victims. you can't claim moral values and not uphold them by failing to punish those who've sinned and silencing the victims seeking justice in both the laws of man and god.

funkyjiveturkey:

the priests and accused in these cases are actively harming others, causing severe mental and social trauma that follows these victims the rest of the lives. by not reporting these instances and shuffling the priests around to keep committing these crimes they are condoning the sexual abuse of children by allowing these perpetrators to actively harm children and transfer them to areas where they can do it again and again with no reprimand. drugs abuse and sexual abuse of children are two very different things, especially on a moral level when it comes to not reporting them.

child abuse is NEVER acceptable to keep quiet. regardless of it's your best friend, coworker, or one of your own parents. if anyone has half way decent moral values, they would lock up that person for both the GOOD of the guilty party and the victims. you can't claim moral values and not uphold them by failing to punish those who've sinned and silencing the victims seeking justice in both the laws of man and god.

So basically, allowing something to continue counts as condoning it only if the action is bad enough by your standards. Secondly, you're upset at a religion not seeking justice and punishing sinners, but you'd be one hell of a lot more upset if the Catholic Church decided it was going to start seeking moral justice and punishing sinners. I'm not sure if you know this about Christian religions, at least the more traditional ones, but one of the major doctrines is basically let God do the judging... And your scandalous document was written to address the issue of priests making sexual advances in the confessional. It wasn't a how to guide for covering up pedophilia, it was made to try and take away the gray area when dealing with misconduct during a confidential sacrament.

Ninjamedic:

This statement just baffles me, you're saying your/they're defending the perpetrator of a crime, yet you're not defending the crime itself? Please elaborate on how this works.

It's actually quite simple. Imagine you were on the street with a friend and your friend spontaneously decided to spit at someone of a different demographic and call them some sort of slur. That is a clearly awful action and their victim is probably going to want to strike back. Of course you don't think what your friend just did was acceptable, but that doesn't mean you're going to invite the stranger to punch him in the face. You'd probably want to prevent it, even though your friend certainly deserves it. Protect the person, condemn the action, it's not that strange.

i fucked it up please delete this

tstorm823:

It's actually quite simple. Imagine you were on the street with a friend and your friend spontaneously decided to spit at someone of a different demographic and call them some sort of slur. That is a clearly awful action and their victim is probably going to want to strike back. Of course you don't think what your friend just did was acceptable, but that doesn't mean you're going to invite the stranger to punch him in the face. You'd probably want to prevent it, even though your friend certainly deserves it. Protect the person, condemn the action, it's not that strange.

Please tell me that you're not equating racist slurs to child rape, it's one thing to protect a friend in spite of having racist views, but I can say I'd never protect someone responsible for child abuse, regardless of how close they were to me.

Also, my other question still stands:

Why is it that a organisation that claims to have a moral ground on social issues is allowed to even have an excuse for this? How can their opinion on social/cultural matters be even considered legitimate after this?

tstorm823:

funkyjiveturkey:

the priests and accused in these cases are actively harming others, causing severe mental and social trauma that follows these victims the rest of the lives. by not reporting these instances and shuffling the priests around to keep committing these crimes they are condoning the sexual abuse of children by allowing these perpetrators to actively harm children and transfer them to areas where they can do it again and again with no reprimand. drugs abuse and sexual abuse of children are two very different things, especially on a moral level when it comes to not reporting them.

child abuse is NEVER acceptable to keep quiet. regardless of it's your best friend, coworker, or one of your own parents. if anyone has half way decent moral values, they would lock up that person for both the GOOD of the guilty party and the victims. you can't claim moral values and not uphold them by failing to punish those who've sinned and silencing the victims seeking justice in both the laws of man and god.

So basically, allowing something to continue counts as condoning it only if the action is bad enough by your standards.

first, the rape of children is wrong BY EVERYONE'S STANDARDS! the problem is that you're comparing it drug use, something a person chooses to do to themselves, and racism which is an entirely. Different. Issue!

Secondly, you're upset at a religion not seeking justice and punishing sinners, but you'd be one hell of a lot more upset if the Catholic Church decided it was going to start seeking moral justice and punishing sinners. I'm not sure if you know this about Christian religions, at least the more traditional ones, but one of the major doctrines is basically let God do the judging...

wrong, i would be THRILLED if they decided to start taking action against people that have gone against both our laws as humans AND the laws laid out by god which i'm pretty sure condemns this kind of behaviour. but god isn't gonna put these child-molesting criminals in prison. basically what you're saying that it's okay for people to do nothing about someone making children suffer because there's a chance that the perpetrator might go to hell someday.

and i know you're probably referring to sinners by their standards in general. but as already stated by everyone in this thread, nobody has that power to effect a group they don't belong to. no one can shut down the papacy, and the papacy can't dole out justice to those that haven't committed crimes in the church so your argument is made invalid.

your scandalous document was written to address the issue of priests making sexual advances in the confessional. It wasn't a how to guide for covering up pedophilia, it was made to try and take away the gray area when dealing with misconduct during a confidential sacrament.

by covering up sexual crimes in all instances by silencing all parties under threat of excommunication.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked